my views on the local news in Minnesota

Immigration

September 04, 2007

An admitted sexual psychopath attempted to avoid commitment to the Sex Offender Program by asking to be deported instead.

The Court of Appeals said no, it doesn't work that way. First you get committed to Minnesota's Sex Offender Program and then if the feds deport you later, that's fine.Minnesota Court of Appeals today affirmed Ramsey District Court Judge Salvador Rosas' ruling that a federal deportation order does not deprive a Minnesota district court of jurisdiction to civilly commit that person to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexual-psychopathic personality and a sexually dangerous person. The Court of Appeals wrote:

On August 3, 2006, the district court committed appellant Hayden Michael Richards to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) as a sexual-psychopathic personality (SPP) and a sexually dangerous person (SDP). And after a 60-day-review hearing, the district court ordered that Richards be indeterminately committed to MSOP. Richards is a citizen of Trinidad and has been ordered deported by the U.S. Department of Immigration and Homeland Security (DIHS).

Richards does not challenge on appeal the district court’s determination that he is an SPP and an SDP under the civil-commitment statute, Minn. Stat. ch. 253B (2006). That determination was based on the district court’s findings that between November 1995 and December 1996, Richards attacked and raped two women and attempted to rape two others.

So, Richards admitted he is a “sexual psychopathic personality” and “sexually dangerous person,” but tried to avoid mandatory commitment under state law because the federal government previously ordered that he be deported. The Ramsey County Attorney argued that even though there is a deportation order, nobody can force the federal government to actually execute the deportation order. And since the feds can deport him whether he has been committed by the state or not, there is no conflict between the federal deportation order and the state's commitment order.

Richards' attorney made a silly argument that because the purpose of the state's commitment statutes is to provide treatment followed by eventual release into the community, committing him would be improper because, under the deportation order, he can't be released into any community in this country.

The Court of Appeals responded by explaining that commitment of persons with a sexual psychopathic personality or who are sexually dangerous is mandatory under the law unless the person can prove that a
less-restrictive treatment option meets his needs and the needs of the
community.